As I wrote just before the 2008 election: “Ultimately, the same people run the show. They set up
this false left-right paradigm and get people fighting endlessly over
meaningless junk. There is a great line in Macbeth about "a tale Told by
an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." The real problem is
not the media, Washington, Hollywood, etc. The real problem is that so many
people are so willing to believe what their chosen spinmeisters tell them, no
matter how absurd.”

The grand battle is
between liberty and tyranny. I woke up to this in late 1991.

I recently
read your note about right wing and left wing contradictions and lies. I offer
these comments for your consideration and feedback.

I agree. The typical left-right stereotypes and
debates are insidious distractions, lies, as you illustrated nicely. You also
answered the right implied question, "Distraction from what?" It
would have been better to ask this directly. Saying the right-left debate isn't
the answer coupled with the answer you gave in the end, "The grand battle
is between liberty and tyranny." implies this question to me but it may
imply other questions to other readers.

The momentum of your message fell apart with the
assertion that "The grand battle is between liberty and tyranny." You
managed to see through all the right-left tricks and absurdities but then just
repeated a slogan prepared by your enemies. Tyranny is a means, a tactic, while
liberty in this context is a vague, un-actionable ideal. Until one understands
the difference they remain vulnerable to the lure of comfortable herd behavior
despite its obvious futility. The Tyranny-versus-Liberty perspective is the
same us-versus-them, good-versus-bad, Christian-versus-Heathen template that
the left-right paradigm defines incessantly in our culture. This is a
faith-based template.

For many people faith justifies the use of force
to impose the tenets of their faith on others of different faith. The problem
with the Tyranny-versus-Liberty version of the template lies in the template,
not in your usage of the template. The template demands those using it dismiss
their opponent's faith and the logic by which they rationalize that faith. This
ensures that much of the interchange between those on the side of
"good" and those on the side of "bad" is pointless, one-way
jibbing just as is taught in school by convincing one small town that kids in
the neighboring town are the enemy. Any objective observer can readily see that
both sides believe theirs to be the side of "good." That fundamental
misconception is at the heart of the whole contrived right-left stereotype.

A war against tyranny is no more focused or
appropriate than a war against terror, or poverty. Wars against tactics are
rallying cries for . . . well, nothing specific. It gets some folks all worked
up but doesn't inform their behavior.

Rather, the
struggle is between two kinds of individuals: those who struggle for
"freedom from" things they don't like and those who struggle to
defend their "freedom to" exercise a diversity of individual choices.
Liberty demands tolerance and is only available through its eternal defense by
individuals who act in constructive endeavors.

The notion of a "grand battle" is
another bit of manipulation intended to convince the current generation that
"freedom from" the struggle lies in this battle's victory. In both
religion and politics the "ultimate climax" must be constantly
perpetuated as an eventuality to keep new generations willing to suffer. The
truth, that the struggle is eternal, doesn't wield sufficient influence over
large numbers of voters or faithful followers of any chosen religion.

This right-left paradigm deliberately creates a
"fog-of-war" intended to mask two strategies shared by both the left
and the right.

1. The
political battle is for the centrist voters. The only thing that matters is
control of the margins in the central density of voters, this is what drives
the traditional left-right stereotypes you exposed. Those at the fringes in any
direction can be counted on to do exactly what is expected of them without any
manipulation from the herd master.

2. The divide and conquer mechanism eliminates the
need for the political power-masters to care a bit what happens at the outer
fringes. Even the far-right and the far-left political factions focus their
energy on the center of the herd, not on their own kind. Those on the fringes
are self-marginalized; the divide and conquer strategy ensures they remain so
as wave after wave of new members are adopted after leaving the indoctrination
system our youth experience as public schooling. The LP is living proof of this
in the real-world. Convincing the masses that their liberty is an ideological
debate ensures they remain futile in their behavior.

These two primary strategies are effective at
causing masses of people to be unable to grasp that Liberty is the consequence
of Action, not talk, not debate, not chanting or mooing in unison with a
comfortable herd. Liberty is expressed by performing constructive actions in
its defense. Relationships between action and consequence, cause and effect or
goal and means, these are the things those who pursue "freedom from"
hope to obfuscate.

When these actions are adopted by supposed
defenders of liberty I consider them to be working to aid the forces of
oppression by carrying out their ingrained doctrines.

When these relationships are blurry it is easy to
entice masses of people to expend their energy doing absolutely useless
things...like screaming oneself hoarse at a high school pep rally or a Tea
Party. Our society ingrains these useless behaviors into citizens starting when
they are very young. By the time they can vote most of them actually think that
screaming themselves hoarse in a large crowd is an effective, constructive
behavior capable of ensuring they meet their intended goals. What a load of
hooey; yet most Americans behave in this manner...reinforced at every
opportunity by professional sports, the media and politicians.

The vast majority of folks I've met from the
so-called liberty movement, whatever that is, are seekers of "freedom
from" the eternal defense of liberty. They are not willing to follow that
to the logical conclusion that only overwhelming force can guarantee
"freedom from." The only liberty worth defending is the one defined
by "Freedom to". Very few individuals know the difference even after
nearly continuous exposure to Dr. Ron Paul's archetypical behavior in the constructive
promotion and defense of "freedom to."

Finally, putting differences aside, let's assume
that last night while you were sleeping everyone who is going to "wake
up", woke up. Now what? If you can just get right to the answer of
"Now what?" you'll find you can skip the whole "waking up"
part. I think it is better to assume everyone is awake and they are wondering
"What now?" Mostly what I've seen over the past 3 years is a lot of
people reaching the "awake" state then not doing anything constructive
once they wake up. I don't know if I'm awake or not but I think I can still
take constructive actions even in my sleep.